Democracy or Dictatorship? - Page 2

[Lardmeister]

Well, if congress is the typical rubberstamp congress, then the president can play dictator!

[Sturm]

>That's very true, the same could be said of Adolf Hitler.

Hitler was a failure at being a dictator, Stalin was not.

[Lardmeister]

Hitler and his henchmen simply killed anyone that stood in their way! I rather have a dictator elected by the Electoral College!

[jasimp]

What about Switzerland ?

Well I guess I did not research this well enough before posting, but, Switzerland's population is around 7 million while the USA has a population of around 300 million. Switzerland's small population makes it easier to have a pure democracy then a country like the United States. Also a pure democracy is people who choose to participate. I am sure that 90% of people in the United States would not participate but then complain about the decisions made.

@jbennet, yes you did mention republic earlier but I added how the USA is part capitalist as well as being part republic.

[Ancient Dragon]

I am sure that 90% of people in the United States would not participate but then complain about the decisions made.

Isn't that about the way it works now ? :(

[jasimp]

yes and that is why it would happen in a pure democracy.

[Lardmeister]

Many potential voters get discouraged because there isn't much to pick from.

[jasimp]

and they also probably don't have a lot of time to educate themselves about all the candidates so they decide not vote.

[Lardmeister]

I read that in the USA less than half of the eligible voters register, and many time less than 30% of those actually vote.

[christina>you]

What is Civics class?

Civics is all about the American Government.

[Dave Sinkula]

What flavor of democracy?

[christina>you]

You keep throwing "best" and "most efficient" around interchangeably, but they are not the same at all. Your question asked about efficiency.

I understand what the words "best" and "efficient" mean, I was just giving my opinion.

[christina>you]

Representative

[Dave Sinkula]

Well then it's a given that it is less efficient.

[edit]As far as "better", I go with "the more local, the more better" coupled with "no career politicians".

[edit=2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

[Ravenous Wolf]

i would say that dictatorship is the most efficient but i would not opt for it. it puts too much power in the hands of just one man and that one man can be corrupted easily.

sturm said that only the weak can be corrupted. that is debatable. i would rather say that it is very difficult to corrupt the pure of heart. but if one really is pure of heart one would believe that dictating to others is wrong.

democracy is not perfect. nor is it even the best form of government possible. but it is the best form of government that the world has had to date. the biggest problem with democracy is of course that a charismatic fool or croock can be elected into power.

one last note. i think(and it is possible that it is only my imagination) that some eastern european countries have a system called no vote. that is you go to vote on election day and if you dont like any candidates you vote in the "no vote" section. if a given post does not receive enough votes then it must remain empty. i think this improves democracy considerably. i think it should be augmented with a recall type of thing. like a motion of no confidence in the elected leader and if enough voters agree then he must leave his post.

[jasimp]

I agree that is a great idea and should be implemented in other countries.

[jbennet]

one last note. i think(and it is possible that it is only my imagination) that some eastern european countries have a system called no vote. that is you go to vote on election day and if you dont like any candidates you vote in the "no vote" section. if a given post does not receive enough votes then it must remain empty. i think this improves democracy considerably. i think it should be augmented with a recall type of thing. like a motion of no confidence in the elected leader and if enough voters agree then he must leave his post.

This sort of exists in the UK too. If no party has a large enough majority (hung parliment) they must make a coalition.

[Sturm]

>i would rather say that it is very difficult to corrupt the pure of heart. but if one really is pure of heart one would believe that dictating to others is wrong.

I don't.

[Rashakil Fol]

Efficient? Numerical measurements of government are irrelevant; what matters are the morality of the actions government does. Generally speaking, the success of a government depends on how its policies promote a competitive market with incentives to produce, not on the internal structure. Compare, for example, Stalin, whose dictatorship was an economic failure (unless you're comparing it to what existed before Lenin), versus Hong Kong, which under British dictatorship and despite constant influx of completely broke refugees is a moderate economic success.

I don't.

That's because you're evil.

[Sturm]

>That's because you're evil.

You should'nt believe in evil. Its just a tool that politicians use to force their own morals on the country.

[Rashakil Fol]

I'm not believing, I'm observing.

If you've read A Wrinkle in Time, did you find yourself siding with IT?

[Sturm]

Main characters that aren't self centered annoy me.

[jbennet]

versus Hong Kong, which under British dictatorship and despite constant influx of completely broke refugees is a moderate economic success.

China swapped it to us for 99 years. We gave it back in 1997

[twomers]

Well dictatorships have a horrible tradition of getting into wars and democracies have a horrible tradition of starting them ... I don't know which is better.*

* don't take that too seriously.

>> China swapped it to us for 99 years. We gave it back in 1997
And where's the rest of Ireland, huh?**

** don't take that too seriously either.

[Ancient Dragon]

democracies have a horrible tradition of starting them

Please name some (other than the obvious Iraq)

[twomers]

>> Please name some (other than the obvious Iraq)
>> >> * don't take that too seriously.

I was being sarcastic, Dragon! I didn't actually mean it. Against the certain possibility that my sarcasm wasn't recognised I even put an astrix with a footnote there.

But Iraq.

[jbennet]

Afghanistan is even worse than iraq i dotn know why we even went there it was a dumb idea

[Ancient Dragon]

>> Please name some (other than the obvious Iraq)
>> >> * don't take that too seriously.

I was being sarcastic, Dragon! I didn't actually mean it. Against the certain possibility that my sarcasm wasn't recognised I even put an astrix with a footnote there.

But Iraq.

Oops! you are right -- I didn't read your post close enough :icon_redface:

[twomers]

>> I didn't read your post close enough
Don't worry about it. I'm sure if Ireland boasted an army of more than ... 30 we'd be in there too!

[jasimp]

Getting back to democracy and dictatorship I would have to say that in Iraq having a dictatorship was definitely more efficient, maybe even better in a perverse way. Saddam was a horrible person but he kept a form of "peace" in the area. Now without his power of fear the citizens are waging war on each other. I suppose it is better if they choose to kill each other than be killed by him, our presence isn't really helping because they do not want us there so they try to kill us, in turn killing more innocents. I think it is a situation far more complicated than, sending more troops or taking the troops out.